REV. R. PENGILLY, of Ireland, author of an excellent tract on Baptism, says:—
"From my earliest childhood, I was taught to say that, 'in my baptism, I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven.' See the Church of England Catechism, and Baptism of Infants. My instructors would readily admit, and in effect taught, the following sentiments, lately given to the world by different writers.
"One affirms: 'With the water of our baptism, the grace of regeneration, the seed of the Holy Ghost, the principle of a higher existence, is committed to the soul; it grows with us as an innate impression of our being. . . . As long as the believer trusts to his baptism as the source of life, all is well.' Mr. W. Harness, minister of St. Pancras' chapel, London, in a sermon on Baptismal Regeneration.
"Another adds: 'On a topic so interesting I might have well enlarged. I might have told you that only by baptism we are admitted into Christ's flock on earth; by baptism we are adopted into his covenant, incorporated into his church; . . . that in baptism all our sins are pardoned, and the Holy Ghost bestowed.' W. B. Knight, Perpetual Curate of Margam, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Llandaff, Letter on Baptism."
These teachings are not confined to the Church of England. Dr. Clarke says substantially the same thing, as follows:—
"Baptism brings its privileges along with it, is a seal of the covenant, does not lose its end through the indisposition of the receiver."—Com., at the end of Mark.
In the baptismal service of the Methodist Episcopal Church are the following words of prayer for an infant, at its baptism:—
"We beseech thee, for thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt look upon this child; wash him and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, that he, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ's church."
And hymn 259, of the Methodist Hymns, says:—
"Now to this favored child be given
Pardon, and holiness, and Heaven."
Wesley says: "If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism. It has been already proved, that this original sin cleaves to every child of man; and that hereby they are children of wrath and liable to eternal damnation." And again, quoting the "rubric" of the church, he says: "It is certain, by God's word, that children who are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are saved."
These are sufficient to show, and conclusively show, that salvation is based entirely upon baptism—"baptism regeneration." The remark of Dr. Clarke is singular,—the indisposition of the receiver is no bar to receiving the benefit of the ordinance. It must then remain a question, What is necessary, on the part of the receiver, to invalidate baptism or to forfeit its benefits? Who shall determine this?
And it is evident, also, that if these teachings are true, unbaptized children are certainly lost! If, by baptism, sins are pardoned, the Holy Ghost received, the principle of a higher existence is committed to the soul, a child is made a member of Christ and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven, it follows that without baptism none of these benefits can be received. For how shall an infant receive pardon who is not thus "favored"? How else is an unconscious babe delivered from the wrath of God and brought into the church? The Arminians are accustomed to speak sharply against the Calvinists on account of their belief in infant reprobation, but the parties are not so very far apart so far as "infant damnation" is concerned. In effect, both parties teach it.
But the whole system is wrong, in every particular. Wrong in principle, and in its methods of proof. The salvation of little children stands on a different basis. The infant of days has committed no sin, cannot repent or believe, and needs no remission. Or else, of what is it pardoned? As it has no sin of its own, it must be pardoned of the sin of another. Of course, then, without such pardon it would stand condemned, and finally be lost, for the sin of its forefather!
But the Lord says, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." Eze. 18:20. Each individual of the race must bear his own sin, and the sin of no other. How will the advocates of this theory meet this Scripture truth?
We will now present an argument, which, we think, is justified by reason and the Scriptures.
As no person is answerable for the sins of another, so no person can repent of the sins of another. We may, indeed, be sorry that others have sinned. I am sorry that Adam sinned; sorry that my parents sinned; yes, sorry that you, reader, have sinned; but I am not required to repent of their sins or of yours. I cannot do it. I can repent of my own sins only. And as baptism is so intimately connected with repentance, I was baptized for my own sins, and for no others. However much Adam may have sinned, I should not have been required to be baptized if I had not sinned. It is unscriptural and unreasonable to be baptized for the sins of another, as it is impossible to repent of the sins of another.
The Scripture says, "In Adam all die." Adam, because of his sin, was shut away from the tree of life, lest he should eat, and live forever; Gen. 3:22, 23; and thus mortality was settled upon him because of sin; for "the wages of sin is death." Of course his children, and so all his posterity, received from him a nature no higher than his own; with him all were shut out from the tree of life, all became subject to death, all returned to the dust. This death, which we variously call natural death or temporal death, and the first death in distinction from eternal death, or "the second death," was a penalty inflicted upon Adam for his sin; and it was the penalty of that sin only. As he only was the transgressor, he only could bear the penalty; for "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." To his posterity it is a consequence of their relation to him, and not a penalty. The "second death" is the penalty for the personal sins of Adam's posterity.
When sentence was pronounced upon Adam, a new probation was given to man through "the seed of the woman." Through a promise of the Son of God, who should become a son of man, the gospel scheme was opened to the race; and as the race was already involved by the fall of Adam, shut out from the tree of life, and doomed to return to the dust, or to die, another death was placed before Adam's race as the penalty for personal sin; it is true, under all conditions and dispensations, that "the wages of sin is death."
That the death which the race has fallen under ever since the fall of Adam is not the penalty of our personal sins, is proved by the following considerations: They who accept the gospel of Christ in him, and receive the pardon of their sins; yet they die "in Adam," as the unjustified do. But no one can believe that sin is pardoned and punished also. The remission of sin is the remission of its penalty. The individual who is pardoned by the death of Christ escapes the penalty of personal sin; "on such the second death hath no power." Rev. 20:6. But they who are not pardoned—are not justified by faith in Christ—shall fall under the second death. This is proof sufficient that the second death is the penalty of personal sin.
Repentance, faith, remission, all combined, will not remove the consequence of Adam's transgression. We still die "in Adam," saints as well as sinners; and therefore this death is not the penalty of personal sin. The gospel may bring from it, a benefaction; but it does not save from it by means of remission. It is remitted to nobody.
As in the case of the saints—the justified—so in the case of infants. They have no sins for which to answer. They cannot fall under a penalty, because they are innocent. Yet they die; of course not as sinners condemned, but as mortal creatures cut off from the tree of life by the action of Adam. His sin brought condemnation to himself, and it was deserved; but it brings no condemnation to these innocent ones; they do not deserve it, and "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."
What, then, it may be asked, does the gospel actually offer in the case of infants? We answer, it offers them a resurrection from the dead. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Infants die because of their connection with Adam, not on account of any sin of their own; and they are made alive in Christ, not because of their obedience, but as members of the race for whom he died. What they lost in the first Adam is restored to them by the second Adam. See a promise of a resurrection to children, in Jer. 31:15-17. This is positive, tangible; it stands on no uncertain inference.
There will be three classes in the resurrection. One, of sinners condemned, who have never accepted the gospel nor received pardon through Christ. The second death claim them as its own. Another, the saints; those who have had their sins washed away by the blood of the Redeemer. Being justified, the law has no claim against their lives. "On such the second death hath no power." The third, infants, who have never sinned. Of course they are not condemned; they have done no wrong; on no principle of justice can they be condemned. Through Christ they are brought up from death, of course to die no more. They stand related to the law as the saints do; not as the saints, pardoned, but as innocents, against whom no charge can be brought. Having no sin upon them, they will die no more. That life they get through Christ as truly as do the saints. Hence they can join the everlasting song of redemption, with all the saints in glory. Had it not been for Christ they would have remained dead. For eternal life, its joys and its glory, they are as truly indebted to divine love and favor in the gospel as David, or Peter, or Paul. Thus it is easy to see that infants are saved by the gospel, but not by means of faith, repentance, and baptism. These are for sinners, not for innocents.
When strong men endeavor to maintain their theories by weak assumptions or flimsy arguments, it often becomes strong evidence of the erroneousness of their theories. They will do the best they can under their circumstances. We are led to these reflections by reading remarks on baptism, by Dr. Lightfoot, copied and approved by Dr. Clarke. He says:—
"To the objection, It is not commanded to baptize infants, therefore they are not to be baptized, I answer, It is not forbidden to baptize infants, therefore they are to be baptized."
This is one of the strangest arguments ever put forth by anybody. It is as much as to say, Anything which is not expressly forbidden may be properly maintained as a part of the gospel! That the Doctors should think the absence of a prohibition is equal in weight to the presence of a commandment, does not argue well for their acumen in matters of duty. Under such a rule, the wildest vagaries and most gross innovations may be maintained as of authority in the church of Christ.
Nor does the reason assigned help the case. They assume that the rite was well known to, and practiced by, the Jews in and before the days of John, and was passed over into the gospel without the necessity of a precept. Why, then, was adult baptism so specifically required and so often mentioned? This might have stood on exactly the same ground. But there are two difficulties in the way: 1. If proselyte baptism existed among the Jews at that time, there is no evidence, not an intimation, that the Christian or gospel ordinance was the continuance of it. Certainly not, according to Dr. Clarke, for he argues that baptism takes the place of circumcision, which was ever distinct from proselyte baptism. 2. There is no proof that proselyte baptism existed among the Jews at that time. Many authors think it did, but the proof is far from clear. Prof. Stuart went into a thorough examination of the case, both of Scripture and history, and he sums up as follows:—
"It is a matter of no little interest, so far as our question is concerned, to inquire whether Christian baptism had its origin from the proselyte baptism of the Jews. This we have now done, and have come to this result, viz., that there is no certainty that such was the case, but that the probability on the ground of evidence is strong against it."
Remembering Blessings Amid Grievances
WHAT unthankfulness it is to forget our consolations, and look only upon matter of grievances to think so much upon two or three crosses to forget a hundred blessings.
SOWING TARES.
The boys of Class No. 4 were gathered close around their teacher, listening eagerly to her explanation of the lesson. She told them that among the people who sat listening to Jesus when he spake about the wheat and tares might very likely have been some in whose field their enemies had sown tares; may be there were some who had done the same thing themselves to others.
"I Shouldn't think any body would be ugly enough to do such a mean trick," said Will scornfully.
"Nobody in the country would, I know," said Chester. "Those Jews must have been a pretty hard set."
"I suppose," said their teacher, "that people are pretty much the same all over the world. We are all a 'hard set' until the grace of God softens us."
"I never knew anybody that would do such a thing as to spoil another person's work when it was not going to do him any good," said Will confidently.
"But this was the devil," suggested Sam. "May be you're not acquainted with him."
The boys laughed, but Miss Lawrence said very gravely:
"I am sorry to say I am acquainted with him, and what is much worse, I find he has a very large company of servants who are doing his work, and, helping him sow tares among the wheat."
"Now, Miss Lawrence," said Sam with his roguish smile, "don't say you mean Will or me."
"You shall say for yourself, when I tell you a little about this sowing of evil seeds. I have seen a boy who had a quick fiery temper, which he was trying very hard to control, thrown into a perfect rage by the teasing tricks of a companion, who was simply amusing himself by tormenting his friend, and who excused himself by saying it was 'such fun to see him blaze up so.'"
Miss Lawrence did not look at any one of the boys, but down in almost every heart was a voice that said, "I have done that myself."
"And sometimes in Sunday-school, or in church, when the pastor or superintendent was trying to put into the hearts of those before him some good seed, I have seen a boy reach the whole length of a seat to slyly pinch a companion who seemed to be listening earnestly, or take out a knife or a toy and attract the attention of those around him. That was keeping the good seed from taking root, and sowing tares in the shape of wandering thoughts."
"That hits Will," said Sam solemnly; "he is distracting my attention."
"And I have known a boy," said Miss Lawrence, with her eyes on Sam, "who was always ready with a joke, or a laugh, or a funny remark, to scatter any good impression that might be made on himself or his friends. I suppose the devil does not care how pleasantly the work is done, if only the evil seeds can be slipped in with the good."
Sam turned very red and was silent.
"We are all sowing something, either wheat or tares, in our own hearts and in the hearts of others. What if we should ask ourselves every night whether we have planted any seed which we should like to have grow?"
Chester was sitting with his chin on his hand, looking steadily at Miss Lawrence. "I was thinking of what mother said this morning about Bert and Elsie. She said I could do more for them by example than anybody else could by preaching. That they would copy what they saw me do; and so I s'pose if I get mad at things, and talk cross, and don't mind mother, it's scattering bad seed to grow up in their hearts. It's awful hard on a fellow, though, to have all his bad things growing up in other people's gardens."
"The only way, my dear boy, is to keep the bad things out of our own gardens, and then they will not scatter seed into our neighbor's field."
"Can't do it," said Will, shaking his head; "the seeds must be in the ground, I guess, and grow without planting."
"That is very true, Will; Satan put the bad seed in the ground a great while ago, but there is one way to keep it from growing, and that is to keep the field full of good seed. A field that is not planted with wheat will be full of weeds; and unless God's word takes root and grows in our hearts, evil things will certainly fill them."
"I've noticed that, in our garden," said Fred, "the weeds always grow in the corners where we don't plant anything."
"I suppose," said Chester, "the men that keep saloons must be sowing bad seed."
"Yes, but the seed has already grown up in the hearts of the drunkards, and every one can see what bad fruit it bears. But when Satan or one of his servants persuades a boy to drink what he calls a harmless glass of beer or cider, he has slipped in a little seed, and hidden it so cunningly that no one will suspect it until by and by it begins to bear its evil fruit. It is just the same with Sabbath-breaking, and swearing, and falsehood. First Satan puts in a very little seed among so much good that nobody notices it until it grows up."
Will and Chester walked home from Sunday-school together, as they always did. At a muddy crossing a man ran carelessly against them, and crowded Will into a puddle.
"Confound it!" he exclaimed impatiently, "why can't folks use their eyes?"
"See here, Will," said Chester, "wouldn't Miss Lawrence say somebody had slipped seeds of something into your field?"
"Well, I suppose so," admitted Will; but I've got such a habit of saying that, that it slips out before I think."
"Seed is growing, you see."
"Maybe, but don't you preach, old fellow; I could find plenty of weeds in your field."
"Pull 'em up then," said Chester, "and I'll lend a hand at yours."
"And not get mad?"
"Well, I can't promise; very likely I may, because getting mad is one of my tares."
"I'll tell you what; let's have a secret society in our class, and get all the boys to join. We can just have a sign that we shall understand."
"Like this," said Chester, making a motion, with his hand, of scattering seed.
"Yes, that would be good; and whenever we see one of the boys going wrong, we'll make the motion, just to remind him to watch out."
"All right," said Chester, "we'll settle it at school to-morrow."
"And call it 'The Wheat and Tares Society.'"
"Call it 'The Protective Union,'" suggested Chester, and that was its name.—Mrs. E. H. M., in S. S. Times.
The Sabbath School.
By Editor
LEARN YOUR LESSON.
1. EVERY scholar should have a good understanding of the lesson before he comes into the class. The school or the class is no place to learn a lesson. It is for recitation, for illustration, etc. But the teacher can do a class but little good in the way of improvement, or of enforcing a lesson which the members do not understand.
2. The teacher should have a thorough knowledge of the lesson. A school session may be made profitable if part of the class have not learned the lesson, or even if all the class have but a limited knowledge of the lesson. But no school can be profitable to a class where the teacher does not know the lesson. In such case the pupils lose confidence in the teacher and become listless and careless. In a short time they lose their interest, and the school becomes to them an injury instead of a benefit, because they learn to slight sacred things. It begets irreverence. There will be no encouragement for the scholars to learn the lesson if they find that the teacher has neglected it.
3. But, most important of all, the superintendent should learn the lesson. The failure of one scholar in this respect may possibly affect only himself. The failure of a teacher affects the whole class. But the failure of a superintendent affects the whole school. The pupils and the teachers may do their part well, but they cannot hinder a school running down if the superintendent neglects to inform himself of the lesson and duty of the day.
An army is demoralized just as soon as it loses confidence in the commanding officer. He must understand military tactics, and keep up a complete knowledge of the doings of his inferior officers, and be ever ready to correct them if they err, or instruct them how to improve their methods. Just so with a superintendent. All should be able to look to him with confidence to help them out if difficulties arise. He should study most, and pray most over his lesson and his duties, feeling that a greater responsibility rests upon him than upon any other.
Sometimes a school elects one as a superintendent who has never taken an active part in the school, hoping thereby to enlist him in the service. This should never be done. It is ruinous to the prosperity of the school. A superintendent should be selected from among those who have shown the greatest interest in the school, and have proved their efficiency by painstaking in becoming thoroughly acquainted with their duties.
Ed. Signs.
VALUABLE BOOKS FOR BIBLE STUDENTS.
The Church, School, and its Officers, by J. H. Vincent, D. D. This thoroughly instructive and interesting volume was written mainly for ministers and teachers, and for officers of the church. 224 pp. 75 cts.
Hand-Book of Bible Geography. Containing the Name, Pronunciation, and Meaning of every Place, Nation, and Tribe mentioned in both the Canonical and Apocryphal Scriptures. By Rev. Geo. H. Whitney, A. M. Illustrated by one hundred Engravings, and forty Maps and Plans. 400 pp. $2.50
Bible Manners and Customs. Containing Descriptions of the Ancient Manners and Customs mentioned in the Bible, and explaining over three thousand Scripture Texts. By James M. Freeman, D. D. Illustrated by 168 Engravings, and accompanied by an Analytical Index, a Textual Index, and a Topical Index. 515 pp. $2.50
A Dictionary of the Holy Bible, for general use in the study of the Scriptures; with engravings, maps, and tables. Pub. by Am. Tract Society. 534 pp. $1.25
Cruden's Complete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures, with a Concordance of the books called Apocrypha, and a Life of the Author, also an Alphabetical Table of Proper Names with the signification of the words in their original languages. 856 pp. $1.75
Cruden's Concordance Condensed, a Complete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures, on the basis of Cruden, edited by John Eadie, D. D. Pub. by Am. Tract Society. 561 pp. $1.00
The Art of Questioning, with an introductory address on Training Classes, by J. G. Fitch. 15 cts.
The Use of Illustrations in S. S. Teaching, by J. M. Freeman. 15 cts.
The Art of Securing Attention in a S. S. Class, by J. G. Fitch. 15 cts.
Pilgrim's Progress. Firmly and beautifully bound, printed on heavy tint paper, contains 36 engravings, and has marginal references to such texts of Scripture as are illustrated by the story. 336 pp. $1.50
Dowling's History of Romanism. From the earliest corruptions of Christianity to the proclamation of Papal infallibility, and the deposition of Pius IX. as a temporal sovereign. It refutes the errors and superstitions of Romanism, tells the story of their origin, exhibits the workings of the iniquitous system, reviews historically its domination over kings and princes, its oppression of the consciences, and tortures of the bodies, of men, and the efforts of different ones at different times to relieve Christendom of its terrible thralldom.
Price in Muslin, $4.00
Half Morocco, $4.75
Fables of Infidelity and Facts of Faith. Being an examination of the evidences of infidelity, by Rev. Robert Patterson. 528 pp. $1.75
Case's Bible Atlas. A new and comprehensive atlas to illustrate the Old and New Testaments, containing fifteen maps with explanatory notes on each map, and a full and accurate index. Also an article on the Jewish and Roman modes of computing time mentioned in the Scriptures. List of maps:—
Distribution of Nations after the Deluge.
Gentile Countries, and Nations of the Old Testament.
The Exodus, or Journeyings of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan.
Modern Egypt and Sinai (Physical).
Holy Land as allotted by Joshua to the Twelve Tribes of Israel.
Kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
United Kingdom of Saul, David, and Solomon.
Lands of the Jewish Captivities.
Plan of Ancient Jerusalem.
Solomon's Temple and the Tabernacle (Bird's-eye View).
Palestine in the time of our Lord.
Modern Palestine (Physical).
Sea of Galilee and Environs of Jerusalem.
St. Paul's Journeys.
Modern Jerusalem.
Prevailing Religions of the World.
The maps are clearly lettered and distinctly printed, and the index is more complete and perfect than we have seen in any other Bible Atlas. Over a thousand places are given in alphabetical order with figures showing the map in which it is given and letters indicating the latitude and longitude near which the place will be found.
Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES,
Oakland, Cal.
DOCTOR BENSON'S SUNDAY BOOK.
In chapter 3 the Doctor notices but two points. First, the Sabbath as a sign. This is a point which deserves large notice, but he passed it over with a very brief one. But brief as it is, it proved large enough to embody a very great and serious error. The Doctor quotes parts of verses 13 and 17, of Ex. 31, and remarks:—
"It was accepted and observed with such understanding of its purport and obligation. It was a memorial of the goodness and faithfulness of their covenant-keeping God. He remembered them and extended to them his deliverance from peril and suffering."
Here is another abuse of the Scriptures—an inexcusable perversion. Not a sentence in the sacred record will justify the position which he here assumes. We say it is inexcusable because the Lord, in the very text from which the Doctor quotes, revealed its purport in direct and unmistakable terms. The Scripture says:—
"It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed."
Why did the Doctor suppress this reason, which is given by Jehovah himself, and give a reason of his own, which the Lord never gave? Evidently to make the Sabbath appear to be a Jewish institution, and a sign of something which was peculiar to the Jews, the more easily to get rid of it in order to establish the "day of the sun." He says it purported to be a sign of the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt. The Lord said it is a sign of the creation of heaven and earth. In the very week of creation Jehovah rested upon the seventh day, and blessed and hallowed it. And this was the identical seventh day which he specified in the fourth commandment, which he commanded his people Israel to observe, upon which the manna was withheld. Thus the plain word of God sweeps away all the Doctor's vain talk about that day which was enjoined in the wilderness not being the Patriarchal or original Sabbath. The Lord himself bases the institution on his work of creation, and his resting on the seventh day from "the beginning." Dr. Benson says, Not so; it was instituted as a sign that God delivered the Jews out of Egypt! If one such palpable contradiction of Jehovah's own language could be found in the advocacy of the seventh-day Sabbath, we know not where we should hide our shame. But the advocates of Sunday show that they consider their case a desperate one, and they are ready to resort to the most desperate means in its support.
Here we will notice the difference between Ex. 20 and Deut. 5. In Deut. 5 the Lord said he commanded them to keep the Sabbath because he brought them out of Egypt. In Deut. 24:17, 18, et al., he commands other duties in the same manner: "Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless, nor take a widow's raiment to pledge; but thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence; therefore I command thee to do this thing." Lev. 19:35-37; "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have; I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments; I am the Lord."
These, and indeed all duties, cf. Deut. 7:20-25, were commanded them for the same reason, that he brought them out of Egypt. But does the Doctor, or do his indorsers, believe that these duties originated in their coming out of Egypt? Do they believe that such duties were binding only on those whom the Lord brought out of Egypt? We know they do not. Why, then, will they pretend that the seventh-day Sabbath had its origin in their coming out of Egypt, in the face of the plain declaration of the Lord to the contrary? The Lord commanded them to keep the Sabbath, and to perform all other duties, because he brought them from bondage. But he never based the obligation on any such fact. When the reason of the institution, in its origin, is given, reference is always made to creation. Did Jehovah rest upon the seventh day from bringing Israel out of Egypt? Did the Lord bless and sanctify the seventh day (or any day) because he brought Israel out of Egypt? Let him who argues such a position bring the proof. We stand upon the word of God. Let those who claim a Jewish origin for the seventh-day Sabbath show their foundation.
In regard to the Sabbath as the Creator's sign, we will only add that the Scriptures always give the work of creation as the proof of the power and godhead of Jehovah. See Ps. 19:1-6; Jer. 10:1-16; Acts 17:22-26; Rom. 1:19, 20; Rev. 14:6, 7. Of this the seventh-day Sabbath is a memorial, because that in it he rested from all his work which God created and made. For this reason he blessed and sanctified the seventh day. For our proof we rest on no inference—no uncertain probability or conjecture. Will Dr. Benson or any of his indorsers undertake to furnish such proof in favor of the first day, or day of the sun?
His second point in chapter 3 is, that the Sabbath is a type of the gospel; yes, and even of the land of Canaan. These are his words:—
"It was also typical in its character. It was a type of Canaan, the land of promise, symbolizing the rest and rich fruition awaiting them when their pilgrimage should terminate, and their enemies should be subdued. It was also typical of the gospel dispensation, when the rites, ceremonies, and costly sacrifices of ritualistic worship should be superseded by the simple and spiritual worship of God. The Sabbath was also typical, too, of the heavenly Canaan, the eternal rest of Heaven."
We must express our surprise on reading the above words. The Sabbath a type of three separate things as widely different as time is from eternity, and as far apart as earth is from Heaven!
Who could tell when such a type would cease by meeting its antitype? One-third fulfilled when Israel entered Canaan; two-thirds done away when the gospel dispensation was ushered in; and fully abolished when the saints reach the heavenly Canaan! How can this be reconciled with the word of the Lord, that in the new earth the people of God shall come up to worship from one Sabbath to another? And how shall we reconcile this statement with the Doctor's further assertion concerning Col. 2, that the seventh-day Sabbath, the one which he affirms was the type of the heavenly Canaan, was nailed to the cross, and is already abolished? Why abolished so far short of its antitype? And if it was a type of the earthly Canaan also, to what extent was its sacredness and its obligation impaired by the children of Israel coming into possession of that Canaan? We think a more thorough study and consideration of the subject would have enabled the Doctor to take a position more in harmony, not only with the Scriptures, but also with himself.
The truth is, the seventh-day Sabbath is not, and never was, a type of anything. It was a memorial only. But one sole reason for the institution is ever given in the Scriptures, namely, that God made the world in six days and rested the seventh day. "The Sabbath was made for man" when the heavens and earth were made; it was blessed and sanctified when man was yet an unfallen being; when man was not a subject of redemption; when the earth and all the works of the Creator's hand were still "very good;" when sin and the curse had not yet marred the glory; when the song of joy which the sons of God sang had not been hushed by man's rebellion. Then and there the Sabbath had its origin. Blessed memorial of a most glorious work! Had man continued in innocence its sacred hours would never have been desecrated throughout the ages. How fitting that it shall be honored in the new heavens and earth, where it shall be kept as holy as it was in Eden before the fall.
It needs no argument to prove to the mind of any considerate reader that types did not originate in Eden. After the fall a system of redemption was devised, a Saviour was promised, and types were instituted to aid in the development of the gospel plan. But the Sabbath antedated the gospel. Had sin never entered into the world—had no gospel ever been needed—the Sabbath would have stood as the memorial of the great Creator's work. It would then have been "a sign" of precisely the same significance that it is now. But no one could have considered it a type. It bears no possible resemblance to the types of the Levitical dispensation.
Reference to Heb. 4 does not at all aid the theory that the Sabbath was a type. All authorities agree that verse 8 refers to Joshua, and the name (Jesus) is so rendered in most versions. The argument of the apostle is that a rest was promised to Israel which some did not obtain because of unbelief; that rest they received under Joshua; but inasmuch as the rest is still promised in the days of David, that which they received under Joshua cannot be the real or final rest; therefore a rest still remains to be received by the people of God. Now we will project our argument on these facts:—
1. There was a rest promised which they who fell in the wilderness did not reach. This was not the weekly Sabbath, for this they had in the wilderness.
2. They could not possess that rest because of unbelief. But the Sabbath was a part of the law of God, and its validity and obligation do not at all depend on the belief of man.
3. That rest was given to Israel by Joshua. But Joshua did not give them the seventh-day Sabbath.
4. God was angry with their unbelief, and declared they should not enter into that rest. But God never "sware in his wrath" that they should not keep the Sabbath. He commanded that rebellious ones should be put to death who did not keep it.
5. As unbelief deprived them of that rest, so unbelief will deprive us of that rest which remains, which is the antitype of the rest given to them by Joshua. Surely no one can dissent from this argument, and the conclusion is inevitable.
Now we will quote a few texts to show exactly what was that rest which they received by Joshua:—
Deut. 3:18-20. Moses said unto the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh: "And I commanded you at that time, saying, The Lord your God hath given you this land to possess it; ye shall pass over armed before your brethren, . . . until the Lord have given rest unto your brethren, as well as unto you, and until they also possess the land which the Lord your God hath given them beyond Jordan."
Deut. 12:9, 10. "For ye are not as yet come unto the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God hath given you. But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety," etc.
Josh. 1:12-15. "And to the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to half the tribe of Manasseh, spake Joshua, saying, Remember the word which Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, saying, The Lord your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this land. Your wives, your little ones, and your cattle, shall remain in the land which Moses gave you on this side Jordan; but ye shall pass before your brethren armed, all the mighty men of valor, and help them; until the Lord have given your brethren rest, as he hath given you, and they also have possessed the land which the Lord your God giveth them."
Josh. 21:43, 44. "And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them." See also chap. 22:4.
Thus we see that "the rest" given to them by Joshua is called also "the inheritance." It was the peaceful possession of the promised land. This was the rest which they who fell in the desert of Arabia never saw. It was a type of the heavenly Canaan—the rest and the inheritance which remains for the people of God. This peaceful possession which remains, this sacred quietude, free from sin and care, was prepared for man "from the foundation of the world," of which preparation the Sabbath is a memorial, but not a type. After sin entered, after the curse fell, a redemption system was introduced, and then types were instituted, but not before.
We submit it to the reader, that the Doctor has made affirmations—strong affirmations, it is true,—to maintain which the proof does not exist. The Sabbath of Jehovah, blessed and sanctified from the very foundation of the world, stands secure from all assaults, and, resting securely on the word of the Lord, like that word, it abideth forever.